N J MANKAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A point of considerable importance as to the power of the State Government to differ from the recommendation made by the High Court in the matter of grant of notional promotion and payment of monetary benefits in pursuance thereof to a City Civil Judge in exercise of its power under Act. 235 of the Constitution of India arises in this petition. The question arises in the following circumstances :

(2.) The hope of the Petitioner was belied and he was, therefore, compelled to submit a representation on 29th January, 1979 to this High Court on its Administrative Side to consider his case for notional promotion and to grant him all monetary benefits particularly in light of the decision of this Court (Coram: B. J. Diwan, C. J. as he then was) in Special Civil Application No. 912 of 1974 decided on 13th June, 1978 filed by Shri T. U. Mehta, whose claim was upheld that pursuant to his revised position in the gradation list where he was placed above M/s. J. M. Sheth and V. R. Shah and just below M/s. N. G. Shelat and A. S. Sarela, he should be granted notional promotion in the cadre of City Civil Judges with all back benefits as a result thereof. The Petitioner learnt that this Court on its Administrative Side has resolved that had the gradation list of District Judges at the time of establishment of City Civil Courts at Ahmedabad on 4-11-61 been revised, as subsequently revised by the Resolution dated 25th September, 1971, in so far as it related to the officers allocated to the State of Gujarat with effect from 1st May 1960, the Petitioner would have teen appointed as City Civil Judge on 4th November, 1961, alongwith other District Judges so appointed, and that he would not have been appointed as Principal Judge of the City Civil Court at the relevant time. The Petitioner also learnt that the High Court has by letter of 20th December, 1979 informed the Petitioner of the aforesaid decision and that the Government was moved to take necessary action in the matter to give effect to the said decision of the High Court. The Petitioner expected that the State Government will accept this recommendation of the High Court on its Administrative Side, but to his surprise he learnt from the letter of the Registrar of this Court dated 29th June, 1961 that the Government has not accepted the request made by the Petitioner in his representation of 2nd January, 1979 with the result that the Petitioner was compelled to move this Court for appropriate writs, orders and directions to quash and set aside the order of the State Government refusing, to give retrospective promotion to the Petitioner as a City Civil Judge and/or as Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and enjoining the respondent-State to give effect to the decision of the High\court dated 20th December, 1979 by giving notional promotion to the Petitioner in the cadre of City Civil Judges with effect from 4-11-61 and to pay difference between the salary which he would have received if he had been so appointed and the actual salary which he received then as a District Judge, and to grant all consequential benefits arising as a result of notional promotion in the matter of fixation of salary, pension, gratuity etc. with interest on the amounts so directed to be paid at the rate of 10% from the date of the order refusing to grant the benefits till payment.

(3.) Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court (Coram: S. L. Talati, J. on December 23, 1981, appearance was filed on behalf of the State Government, though no reply affidavit was filed opposing the admission of the petition. The petition was, therefore, admitted and Rule nisi was issued by this Court (Coram : S. L. Talati, J.) by its order of January 22, 1982.